On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 10:31 AM Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 03:30:43PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 09:39:07AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > However, parallelism needs to be set. We can't let it eat all CPUs: it > > > needs to respect the -j make option (and make its CPU reservation known > > > to "make"), which we already have a solution for in > > > scripts/jobserver-exec. > > > > The only place where it's invoked is vmlinux.bin at the end of the serial > > tail, where all the tokens would be free anyway. > > > > So I don't think it really buys anything at all? > > There are 2 things I'm thinking about: > > a) > My main concern is the lack of respecting the -j make argument. In my > mind, this is a blocker, because it means a build will now _always_ spin > up max CPUs (not what -j has limited it to), and for CIs, shared compute > systems, or whatever, this violates the requested parallelism level. For > example, if I'm doing a long-running Coccinelle replacement in one tree > (which uses half the CPUs), any builds I launch I'm asking for the other > half of my CPUs to be used so they don't thrash my cache. > > This is the kind of "why are all the CPUs spinning up?" question I > helped track down with commit 51e46c7a4007 ("docs, parallelism: Rearrange > how jobserver reservations are made") forever ago.
Parse -j from MAKEFLAGS (https://stackoverflow.com/a/76517886), forward it to pigz? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
